dictators. from 1980 to 1988 there was a war, and we've largely forgotten about it. it was between iran and iraq. in that war there were planes on both sides american planes, because we had sold planes to both sides. at the time, iran was still flying many f-4's a couple phantoms and on the other side we had advisors on the ground advising hussein. hussein was our ally and we sent money to hussein on a routine basis. there are some reports that say hussein grect drectly got money from our c.i.a. -- directly got money from our c.i.a. you can understand the confusion over there and you can understand even though iraq has been liberated and there is a democracy there that some of them still seem to hate us for some reason. you wonder why would they hate us if we freed them? because some of them still remember hussein and they fear there will be another hussein. one of the saddest stories that came up i think in the last week

was a young soldier was killed in afghanistan. he was killed by the policeman the afghan policeman he was training. we've had over 50 deaths in afghanistan this year from friendly fire from our supposed allies. this one was particularly sad. this boy was to come home within a week or two. his brother was having a football game, was supposed to make his brother's football game. this was a patriotic family. this was a military family. this boy proudly served and he deserves nothing but our admiration. but he called his dad a week before and he said to his dad i think the guy that i'm training is going to kill me. the afghan policeman had been coming up to him for weeks saying we don't want you here. these are the people we're sending our money to and that we're sending our boys to die -- our young -- young men and women to die but it isn't clear they are our friends want to be our allies and it

isn't clear that we can buy their friendship. the president of afghanistan karzai we basically helped get in power. he stays in power probably because of our presence there. yet he's disdainful of us. they have said if there is a war with pakistan, karzai said he would side with pakistan. when there was a shooting recently where an afghan policeman shot several of our officers in a government building where they shouldn't have been armed or weren't armed, karzai's response was to talk about the burning. co-ran as -- koran as though it was a justification for the deaths. when the rights erupted? are what were the words out of president morsi in egypt? the words were how dare america produce this film? america didn't produce the film. not that we should protect the embassy and that really there is

no justification for attacking an embassy regardless of any discussion over this movie. but we have to figure out how do we get and retain valid allies? we do have allies we don't give money to. but too often through the years we have decided to choose one dictator over another to choose the lesser of two evils. ultimately often we've had to go back in to fight against our own weapons. hussein was our ally. we ended up going in to fight against him. the mujahideen that became the taliban. they were our ally, too against russia. we were, in fact, explicitly in favor of radical jihad when it was directed against the soviet union. some of the weapons are left over. in fact, when you look at taliban weapons captured now many of them are american weapons. because it's unclear whether or not we have a good handle on what we give to the afghan

police we're not positive that they don't wind up in the hands of the taliban. it's a very murky situation but i don't think it's a situation that should continue. i think it's time to come home from afghanistan. people say on the other side, they say you want to disengage. no, i want to have relationships with countries around the world. i want to have diplomatic relationships, i want to have trade. but ayotte i don't think having diplomatic relations means you have to bribe them. some people hate you enough that bribing them won't work. and often is counterproductive. thomas edlam reports that even rife from "the new republic" who is not an opponent of foreign aid in theory, concluded of foreign aid to egypt this is not only a moral scandal, it is a geopolitical strategic blunder of huge

proportions. like so many authoritarian regimes, the prime beneficiary of the u.s. foreign aid to egypt was the leader for life, mubarak. and the end result of 0 years of supporting an unpopular dictator is that we're now seeing run eyeing in the -- uprising in the streets. why are they anti-american? because we're friends of mubarak. alison alisar was the author of "the last pharaoh." he said that the mubaraks owned several residenceness egypt some inherited from previous presidents and the monarchy and others he has built. he has had a very lavish lifestyle with many homes around the country. he estimates their family's wealth to be between $50 billion and $70 billion. the gross national income is $2,000 per family in egypt.

you think that might make people a little bit mad? the guy's worth $50 billion to $70 billion and the average income is $2,000. the average income in africa hasn't improved in decades and you've got dictators worth a billion dollars. do you think it makes those people harbor anti-american sentiments because the leaders these dictators have gotten american money? about 20% of the population in egypt lives below the poverty line. according to a 2010 report. and it's not just mubarak himself. it's his whole family that's been enriched. in 2001 they estimated his wealth at $10 billion. just in american banks. swiss, british banks, bank of scotland, bank of england you wonder what it's worth today or if we found it all.

you also wonder how much of that money in those secret bank accounts is really just your money. egypt's first lady, suzanne mubarak's weferlt wealth just by herself is estimated at $5 billion. how much of that is your money? when you hear these numbers of billions of dollars the dictators have, secreted away in swiss bank accounts, listen to that and remember when you hear the plethora of senators who will come to the floor and say that not one penny of foreign aid should ever be cut ever. not one penny of aid they argue, should have conditioned placed on it. the amendment that i will offer today places conditions on foreign aid. but it places conditions that have to pass the senate. not that can be rubber stamped by hillary clinton. hillary clinton thinks human rights are going fine in egypt. she rubber stamped and said give them a billion. a couple of months ago.

no human rights abuses in egypt. she also approved an extra billion for pakistan a month ago. we can't rely on the purse strings to be transferred particularly to this administration but even to any administration republican or democrat. the purse strings are to remain were intended to remain and the constitution says, are to remain in the legislature. this is a real problem. so my legislation makes it come back and we have to vote on it here that they are in compliance. that there are no human rights violations that egypt is not stealing the money and that they're willing and able, that they can and will protect our embassy. i think at a very minimum if you're going to cash our check if you're going to have our foreign aid which i'm not a big fan of, but if you're going to give it, at the very least it should have strings attached that say you have to protect the

american embassy. one of mubarak's sons was jamal nuclear jamal -- jamal mubarak. he's the assistant secretary of general of the ruling national democratic party in egypt. his own wealth is estimated at $17 billion. supposedly spread through several banking institutions in switzerland, germany and the u.s. and britain. you wonder how much of the $17 billion is really your money. ala mubarak a daughter, her property has reached into -- nearly $8 billion. she's got properties on rodeo drive in los angeles, real estate in washington state, new york owns two royal yachts with a value of 6 million pounds. these are the yachts you can land a helicopter on. these are the yachts that have a swimming pool on them. how much of that $8 billion

how much of the money that went to pay for these yachts for the mubarak family is yours? see, the thing is, you should be mad. and i think americans are mad. but it's this confusing situation. we should be mad about the foreign aid and so are the populations that are burning the american flag are mad because see, they didn't receive the foreign aid. the foreign aid went to mubarak. so you should be mad that your senators send this money to dictators and that the dictators live these lavish lifestyles, live in these mansions throughout the world throughout switzerland, london, paris some of the largest private homes in the world are owned by dictators paid for with your money. you should be angry. you should be frothing. you should be upset. and you should tell your senators. you should tell your congressmen, no more money to these dictators. but at the same time you become angry, think it through and understand why the arab world is

angry. they don't hate our freedom. they don't hate our constitution. they are angry at their own dictators, but they are angry that we propped up their dictators for decades after decades. but it all has to do with foreign aid. i have been arguing primarily about pakistan, but the thing is this is bigger than pakistan. pakistan is just the most egregious and one of the larger recipients of our aid. $3 billion worth a year. maybe more. and right now, they are holding dr. shakil alfredi. they tortured him for a year and he has been in prison for the rest of his life. that's not the way an ally acts. i say no more money i don't think that's too harsh no more money to pakistan until they release this doctor. i don't think that's too much to ask. but you will find very few in this body. ask the american people, 80% to

90% agree with me no more money to pakistan until this doctor is fr. ask this body, about 10%, i will be lucky to get 20% of them to agree to have -- not just cut off aid have restrictions on aid. that's how bad it is. the arab spring brought corruption and theft of u.s. aid to light in libya and egypt but africa is rife with stories of theft and dictator spoils. nugaema is the son of he can early to new guinea's dictator. he recently ran afoul of french customs who discovered that his chartered chet had 26 supercars on it -- jet had 26 supercars on it including five ferraris, five bentley five rolls royces, and two bughattis. is anybody besides me mad that we're sending foreign aid to african dictators whose sons are

importing rolls royces, bentleys ferraris and benghattis to africa and countries who have no electricity? i don't care if you're the biggest humanitarian in the world and you want to help people -- it's not going to the people. the foreign aid is stolen by the leadership of these countries and this isn't one example, this is example after example decade after decade. and the learning curve around here is so slow that we will get 10 maybe 20 senators to place any restrictions on foreign aid. 70% of the people living in africa live under the poverty threshold -- $2 a day. $a$2 a day and the son of a leader is importing bughat ties, bentleys, rolls royces, ferraris on his own charter jet. it's got to be a pretty big jet

to have 26 supercars on it. and the rest of africa lives on $2 a day. it's your money stolen or given by your government to dictators in africa. you have to get the connection. you need to be mad. there needs to be an american spring an american spring where you tell your leaders you're sick and tired of your money going to fund dictators. an american spring, where we understand what happened in the arab spring. the arab spring is a direct consequence of us sending foreign aid and lavishing it on people who don't respect the freedom of their constituents who don't allow constitutional freedoms. the arab spring's anger, as much as it is directed against america, is not against our constitution. it isn't because they don't believe in freedom. it's because they're upset that we have been funding and subsidizing their dictators.

the u.s. has given guinea almost $300 million over the past ten years, despite guinea having one of the worst human rights records on the planet. torture is said to be commonplace. "the new york times" reported that last spring, any policeman can arrest any citizen at any time. torture is a current thing -- a current thing -- said mr. mico, a lawyer who is in opposition party, recalling his own beating in the presence of high officials. gonzalo negonb sema, a pharmacist in the center of town here recounted his recent encounter with police over a simple traffic mishap. "they beat me like an animal." so what do we do? we give guinea your money and the people who are beaten with police truncheons at traffic accidents, who are they mad at? we need to begin to understand where the anger's coming from.

when you prop up dictators in third world countries who beat their subjects into submission that's why they're angry. they don't care that we're wealthy or free. they're angry because we prop up dictators who beat them with truncheons. despite widespread reports of abuse, corruption, and ineffectiveness, foreign aid continues unabated. despite polls that show over 70% of the american voters are opposed to foreign aid it continues unabated. even when advocates of foreign aid are beaten down with stories such as i've been telling today of human rights abuses, starvation and downright death threats, hangings, shootings executions, these advocates trot forward their last defense. but foreign aid is only 1% of the budget. it's only $30 billion. do you know how many times they use that argument? every time i want to cut

$30 billion. it's only $30 billion -- they use it for $300 million too. "it's only $300 million." if you don't get started somewhere, how are you ever going to balance your budget? we can't live on with trillion-dollar deficits. they argue eliminating foreign aid won't balance the budget. no, it won't but it's a start. and you have to start somewhere. and why not start with something that's counterproductive? why not start with eliminating something from the budget that is counterproductive and seems to create some of the -- some of the anger at least is some explanation for the anger in the arab world? the final arguments for foreign aid are so flimsy as you would not think they would be worth much to even try to refute. proponents of the status quo use this argument over and over again for any budgetary item. but if we can't cut millions now or even billions how will we he have get to trillions -- we ever

get to trillions? when conservatives argue for cutting small subsidies to little airports that sometimes subsidize one airline ticket by $3,000 they argue "it will only save $300 million." it's not a valid argument, it's a weak argument, and we shouldn't accept it. cutting $30 billion worth of foreign aid wouldn't balance the budget but, you know, i'm not even asking to cut the foreign aid. what i'm asking is that we place contingencies on it, rules of behavior. if you want to be our ally, act like it. if you want to be america's ally, act like it. if you want to cash our check act like an ally and behave. at the very least shouldn't there be some rules and restriction on who gets it? there are reasons for why -- while there are reasons for why they're burning the american flag i'm an american and it upsets me. i'm bothered by the fact that the american flag's being burned but i'm also bothered by the fact that we're sending money to

countries where this is occurring. we're faced now daily with tens of thousands of protesters in these middle eastern countries. we're faced with the tragic assassination of ambassador stevens. and with all the aid -- with all the evidence that foreign aid isn't working that it enables dictators -- rarely buys the behavior we want -- still both republicans and democrats clamor for more aid and they will fight tooth and nail against any restrictions on the aid. so you wonder, where are we going? in fact, you will find in this argument, if you will read the paper, you will find the secretary of state clinton is today arguing for more aid to egypt. see, their argument is, if a country doesn't like us, if they behave illy towards america if you give them more money maybe they'll act better.

i think kind of the opposite. one where we're out of money we're a trillion dollars short i think if we give them less money, they'd think more about their behavior. perhaps if we gave less money or in my mind, no money to pakistan until dr. afridi's released, maybe he'd be released released. it boggles the mind to think that these senators are in favor of no restrictions and actually increasing aid despite decades of evidence that foreign aid isn't working for our country. proponents of this aid continue to argue that these mobs will be more inflamed if we don't give them money. i think it's quite the opposite. i think the other thing about it they don't quite get is that i don't think the people rioting are rioting saying, "give us more aid." what they're rioting for is that they don't like what our aid did in the first place. they're rioting against autocratic authoritarian governments that were propped up

by our aid. so the people who argue that taking away the aid will inflame the arab world well, for goodness sakes turn on the television set they're plenty inflamed. now, take away -- taking away their aid doesn't make it better immediately either, but you at least have some consolation that we're at least trying to do something about the deficit and that maybe we have problems at home that are more pressing than this and that maybe we won't reward bad behavior. but to say that taking away the aid may inflame the arab world? you need to turn on the television set because they're plenty inflamed already. but if you don't understand why they're inflamed if you don't understand the arab spring, if you don't understand why they're mad -- that they're mad because we've propped up dictators that kept them down and kept them from freedom -- you'll never understand or come to a resolution to make things better better. i, for one will not vote for one more penny i will not vote for one more penny of foreign aid to anyone unless it has

restrictions on it. and i will only vote on it if the restrictions say, you have to behave and it has to be approved by the senate. we've tried it before. the other side may come to the floor and say "oh, we have restrictions on aid. foreign aid already has restrictions." well yeah, they're not working because we gave them to the executive branch. like so much in this body we've been giving up power to the presidency for a hundred years. this isn't a republican-democrat thing. this is just a legislative abdication of power and we let the president do whatever he wants. i don't -- i'm not arguing republican or democrat. i'm arguing any president. the power should remain here to the purse strings. we should control them tightly and we should say foreign aid only goes out under very strict conditions and we shouldn't let the final decision be made by an administration that doesn't seem to have the fortitude to make these tough decisions. enough's enough. we're running trillion-dollar deficits.

and it's time to make a stand. so i've been making a stand for the last week filibustering this bill. it doesn't make me the most popular person here in washington. people's travel schedules have been disrupted because of my filibuster. people's campaigning has been disrupted because of my filibuster. but this is not a new problem and it's not a small problem. we're talking about an aid program that's gone on decade after decade. we're talking about an enormous uprising in 30 countries the arab spring, and now maybe the arab winter. and we're talking about how do we make things better? until we fully understand what the arab spring's about and also why the huge amount of anti-americanism is running throughout the middle east, until we understand that, we can't make it better. but i say throwing good money after bad is not the answer. so this evening, i think we will get to vote on my amendment and my amendment is to simply say to

libya, to egypt and pakistan that there are restrictions. on all three they will have to say that we will protect your embassy. there is a question whether egypt was forthcoming in protecting our embassy and there's no question libya wasn't. in the case of libya, i think there are elements there that want to like america. there are also still elements that don't like mechanic. america. but there's not really any government. so i wonder whether an embassy should be opened or reopened in libya. my fear is that if you reopen the embassy in libya and you put 50 marines in there that you may have a catastrophe like we had in lebanon when we had 200 marines killed back in the early 1980's. i think without thousands of marines, i don't think you could protect an embassy in a large city in libya. it doesn't mean we don't have relations. so when i argue for not putting the embassy back in it's because i think long and hard about the danger to another ambassador and to what happens

and what their family will have to suffer if another ambassador is killed. i also think that we can have probably an embassy in a neighboring country and that's what i would recommend until things stabilize. if libya wants to have aid, they should keep cooperating with us with regard to finding the assassins. they should try to work where they can become stable enough to have an embassy. but the bottom line with libya that a lot of people forget, as i talk about foreign aid so many people are like, oh, we can't cut off aid to libya, they want to be pro-american. they have oil. all throughout the bombing when president obama was bombing libya, he kept saying, "oh it will all be free. they'll pay us for it later. it will be a free war." we've heard that one before. iraq was going to be a free war also that iraq oil was going to pay for it. never ends up happening. but that's what they told us about libya. with regard to pakistan, i have one additional requirement.

they have to protect and prove to us they will protect our embassy and they have to release dr. afridi. and i think this is very little to ask. he's under death threats in prison. his family's under death threats in the countryside. they're living in hiding and living in fear because they helped us. the other reason why this administration should really take it personally is somebody leaked dr. afridi's name. his name should have never been known. i doubt it was someone with the c.i.a. but somebody who knew his name leaked this story. there were some stories about a month or two ago about how the president was doing a great job with terrorism. in those stories it talked about a doctor with a vaccine program and his name was found out. somebody leaked those somebody very close to the president leaked those and i think that needs to be investigated, and it's a crime and it should be

punished. but not only is it a crime. whoever in the administration leaked that information about dr. afridi, i hope they lie awake at night and really worry about their soul in the sense that this man may well die. he is going to be in prison for the rest of his life because his name was leaked. that kind of behavior from high-ranking government officials is inexcusable. this evening, we will have this vote. i will encourage the senators to vote for this resolution. it doesn't end aid. i would prefer we end it. this is a moderate step in the sense that it just attaches conditions to it. i think the american people expect this at the very least and i encourage my fellow senators to vote for my

>> 88 there are you bout of anti-obama books. i don't want to be either one of those books. i want to read a book to describe an answer back that was was the most important question, the most interesting question. look at barack obama as a character. it's a complete fish out of water. here's a guy with executive

experience. his entire life is that the law professors like to come at the committee table and the illinois statehouse in the u.s. senate are in various meetings but is never the guy in the front of her deciding, making the hard calls. he is little if if any management experience and suddenly he's in the most important managerial job in the world. president of the united states leader of the free world. my question was, how does he do a? how does he decide? how does he make incisions? how does the governor?

>> the senate is about to return from recess for a series of those. a bill to continue funding the government for six months. a bill sponsored by montana senator, jon tester to ease regulations and was on some outdoor sports, fishing and hunting. and a bill by kentucky senator, randy paul to cut off u.s. aid to pakistan, libya and egypt. this is live coverage of the senate on c-span 2. senate will come to order.

mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: mr. president seeing the distinguished chairman of the foreign relations committee in the chair, i have a feeling i may be preaching to the converted but let me say that we were -- all of us were outraged by the mob that denigrated the muslim faith -- or by the video that denigrated the muslim faith but then by the mob violence, some of it reportedly encouraged by al qaeda or other extremist groups against our embassies in egypt, libya and pakistan and other countries around the world. secretary of state clinton said it well. the united states rejects both the content and message of that video, and deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. the secretary and president

obama have also said repeatedly there is never any justification for the violent acts that have been perpetrated against our diplomats. they've called the governments of these countries to protect our embassies and consulates and, of course, they're right. we've received the condolences and the support of the governments of these countries but also as well as scores of other governments around the world. the support and sympathy expressed not only by foreign officials but as we saw even today by countless citizens of these countries who denounced the attacks on united states personnel need to be recognized. there's no evidence i'm aware of that any of these governments are responsible for or had involvement in these violent demonstrations. they neither ordered them nor condoned them. to the contrary, they've taken steps to protect our facilities and personnel. so i'm mystified i see my

friend the junior senator from kentucky on the floor senator paul. i'm mystified by his legislation. because if this legislation was enacted, would what it would do cut off aid to key u.s. allies. cut off aid to indonesia aid to jordan, cut off aid to israel where such protests have occurred. even peaceful protests. as well as security partners like egypt libya and pakistan. so anyone who is inclined to support this legislation should read the fine print. the way it's drafted is not only unworkable it inflame an already dangerous situation. but it would also harm america's national security interests. it would cut off all aid to governments in countries where protests occurred, until the government arrests everyone who participated and until the f.b.i. identified everyone involved and in the custody of the united states.

this is while our foreign policy would be determined by half a dozen unruly people anywhere in the world. i've seen unworkable and unwise legislation before. this may win the prize. it would be a colossal waste of f.b.i. resources be impossible to implement and those in this country who believe in freedom of speech are we really going to fill up our prison with thousands of foreigners including those who engage in peaceful demonstrations because it includes them. are we really going to cut off aid to the government of egypt which has reaffirmed its peace agreement with israel, sent troops against the egyptian extremists in the sinai deploy police to protect the u.s. embassy and is negotiating an agreement to reform its economy. are we also going to cut off aid to israel, which we do, of

course. so mr. president i ask my full statement be placed in the record. like so many republicans and democrats who have spoken against this, it makes no sense. the presiding officer: without objection, the full statement will be placed in the record. who yields time? the senator from south carolina. mr. demint: thank you mr. president. americans are crying out for us to stop giving hard-earned tax dollars away to countries that aren't our friends. i agree. we need to review all our foreign aid and make any aid conditional on the protection of americans and of our interest. but when it comes to the bill offered by senator paul, i have to say i don't like how some parts of it are worded. it has some flaws and members on both sides of the aisle have

some legitimate concerns. i have been working all day with senator paul to improve the language to address concerns on our side. senator paul has been more than accommodating on this. he was willing to limit the scope of the bill to libya pakistan and egypt. with respect to libya and egypt, he agreed loosen restrictions so the funds would not turn off for 60 days and only turn off if it was clear their governments were not cooperating with the investigation into the attacks and efforts to find the perpetrators. in short, he was willing to accept the legitimate concerns that have been raised by colleagues with respect to the potential unintended consequences of the bill. then senator paul asked the majority leader if he could modify the bill. senators do this all the time, or at least we used to. we work together, we had manager's amendments, we allowed senators to modify their

legislation to fix issues raised by other senators. so after all this work and this good-faith accommodation by senator paul, who to address the concerns of colleagues on both sides of the aisle was agreeing to changes that narrowed the scope of the legislation far beyond what he personally wanted. after all this, the other other side of the aisle beside disierded to play gotcha. they would not let him modify his own amendment. his request was made eight to ten hours before the vote, plenty of time for members to review the changes. but the normal rules of comity apparently don't apply anymore in the senate. well this senator is ashamed of the way the senate is being run. we have had an entire congress of gag rules limited debate, limited votes limited amendments and the result has been no accomplishments. over the last two years the

senate has become a laughingstock. i may not like the way senator paul's bill is worded, his unmodified bill. i don't agree with the scope or the conditions in some cases. but i support the goals of providing accountability in our foreign aid of freeing dr. afridi and of ensuring those we support with our precious dollars are defending our interests and our diplomats overseas. so i will vote yes on this bill in support of these principles. the bill will not pass, but the other side can't hide from this issue forever. senator paul will be back and i will be back with him and we will get the votes that the american people are demanding. i thank the chair. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i'd ask the senator we all understand the normal rules of the senate. this is a big policy, cutting

off four countries' aid with a set of circumstances that is so rigid that it may encompass countries like israel and others. the normal rules of comity here are that something like this would go through the appropriate committee. that's why we have committees. the senator from south carolina is a member of the foreign relations committee. this has never been to the foreign relations committee. does the senator not believe some policy as important as this doesn't deserve hearing doesn't deserve a process, and i think the senator snows as the chairman i have never slowed down a process of our committee. so the normal rules of comity really ought to require this to go through the committee. mr. demint: senator if that were true, i think you've got -- senator tester was one your side has pushed tonight that has not been through committee, violates the budget and a number of other things. the point is this: senator rand paul has been working on this legislation for several months. and has been working to try to get a vote on this floor for

several months and he could not get it. it was turned down time and time again. this legislation has been out there, the issue of foreign aid has been out there, we have not taken it up as a committee we should have, and the fact that he is not given the opportunity to get a vote on the amendment of his choice, to modify his own amendment does break the precedent of the senate and does break the comity we should enjoy when a member offers an amendment they should be able to modify. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president i stand tonight in support of senator paul's amendment to provide limitations on the amount and on the scope of foreign aid the united states sends abroad. this is not a decision i have reached quickly. nor is it an issue that i take lightly. i appreciate that as some of my colleagues have pointed out conditions already exist on some of the foreign aid we send to

pakistan egypt libya and yemen. i respectfully submit, however that these conditions are not producing the desired result. nor are they yet fully enforced. for example is pakistan cooperating with the united states on countering terrorism efforts and preventing terrorists from basing or operating in pakistan as is already required in section 7046 of public law 112-74? are the programs and activities we support in afghanistan sustainable as is also required by section 7046? if the answer to these and to other questions regarding this aid could possibly be no, then we have an obligation to the american people to at least review this aid and inspect every single dollar we send abroad to ensure the billions of

dollars we send to pakistan, to egypt, and to libya are well spent. i support this amendment if for no other reason than to begin the debate on the merit of sending billions of american dollars abroad each and every year. when we stop sending this kind of money to nations that harbor terrorists and imprison those who like dr. afridi would defend our interest, to be clear i don't think that senator paul's amendment is perfect. many of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about this amendment's potential effect on some of our allies outside the middle east. that's why i and several other senators have asked our staffs to work with senator paul and his office to narrow the scope of this amendment. senator paul was responsive to our concerns and was willing to make the requested changes. unfortunately, the majority leader refused to allow senator

paul to modify his own amendment. i don't yet have two full years under my belt as a member of this body, but i've been around just long enough to see that manager's amendments and modifications are routinely applied to their own legislation. and i'm very sorry that senator paul was not given the courtesy that apparently is reserved only for other members of this distinguished body. in a senate where the majority leader has recently announced the amendment days are over, i guess i should not be surprised. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i'll take one minute and then i'll yield back. but with respect to the request, first of all i obviously don't run the senate so i can't speak to what happened with respect to these

other pieces of legislation. but i am responsible for the foreign relations committee. this -- this particular amendment was filed at the desk on september 19. we're here under a rule 14. that's not months of work. the first time i've heard of it was when it came to the desk. so this could well been a policy that we amended in the committee that we worked on appropriately, came up with some appropriate way of dealing with legitimate issues. i'm not denigrating the legitimacy of some of the issues that the senator from kentucky raises. we had a very profound conversation with the foreign minister of pakistan the other day, the foreign relations committee met with her we went in to dr. afridi's situation in some detail. and there are other issues raised here. but just to come in out of the whole blue and file it at the desk and say hey let's change

years of policy with a country that we in the case of egypt desperately rely on with respect to the peace process in the middle east and sustaining the peace agreement with israel, i mean it just -- it defies rationale about how you make good foreign policy. so i have more to say about it in a moment but i just want to make it clear this didn't come to the floor until the 19th of september at the desk and it's here under rule 14. mr. lee: would the senator yield for a question? mr. kerry: can i ask how much time we have? the presiding officer: nine minutes. mr. lee: i'll withhold. mr. kerry: we'll hold off and come back. mr. lee: will the senator yield? mr. kerry: not on my time, no. i'll do it on your time. the presiding officer: who yields time?

mr. mccain: parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. whose time is being -- the presiding officer: if no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides. mr. lee: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president i -- i rise to respond to my friend, my distinguished colleague the senator from massachusetts. in the first place, it is significant. dr. afridi has now been in prison for more than a year. it is significant that this amount of time has elapsed. it is appropriate that we respond in some fashion. i don't know why exactly legislation hasn't emerged from that same committee the foreign relations committee, on which i sit. the fact is, it hasn't. the fact is, i respect my friend the junior senator from kentucky, from having the courage to bring forward this legislation. but regardless the fact is that this legislation is now before us. we can argue about thousand got here about whether it -- how it got here, about whether it should have gone through

committee but it is before us. and the fact that it's now before us means that the senator from kentucky, who introduced it ought to have certain prerogatives prerogatives to change it, prerogatives to modify it before it gets to the floor. that's point i was making. that's point that i think bears some mention here. and i think that's a point that was somehow lost in this discussion today and i think that's most unfortunate. a senator: mr. president? mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside and that s. 3576 be made pending, that

the paul substitute amendment 2849 to s. 3576 be adopted and that at the appropriate time, the senate consider s. 3576, as amended under the terms of the earlier order. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kerry: yes object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. who yields time? mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: it boggles the mind to think that hillary clinton was on capitol hill this week to ask for increasing aid to egypt. it boggles the mind that last month, president obama found an extra billion dollars to give to pakistan. meanwhile, dr. shakil afridi's been in prison for a year. he said directly in interviews he's been tortured by the pakistani government. now he's been imprisoned for life. the foreign relations committee

has had a year to act on this and have not been for thecoming in doing anything to -- forthcome to do anything to address dr. afridi or to try to get him free, or attaching any restrictions or limitations to foreign aid. the restrictions that are currently in place are for the administration and they've been waived. i say we don't give up the power of the purse. i say we keep the power of the purse and the restrictions with the legislature. this bill places restrictions on foreign aid to three countries. this bill does not end foreign aid, it adds restrictions. now, some have argued that interrupting foreign aid now could inflame the arab world. do you think they're not already inflamed? they are inflamed because your foreign aid -- your foreign aid has incensed them, your foreign aid has bought mawb miewb tear tbasmubarak tear gasand police truncheons. some have argued that aid to

israel could be ended by this bill. ridiculous. the bill requires the secretary of state to allege that a contract -- that a country did not attempt to protect an embassy that was atabbed. to imply that a secretary of state, republican or democrat, is going to allege that israel is not protecting our embassy is absurd. it boggles the mind to think that any senator wants to send foreign aid without conditions to countries that are burning our flag. i, for one will not vote for one more penny to send to people who riot and burn the american flag. enough is enough. we're running a trillion-dollar deficit and americans are tired of their tax dollars being sent to countries that are burning the american flag. i urge a "yes" vote on placing restrictions on foreign aid. mr. kerry: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: i'm going to momentarily yield time to the senator from arizona but let me

just say very quickly to the senator from kentucky, who i asked the other day whether he's ever been to pakistan, whether he's ever been to egypt, i think if he had he'd know something more about the millions of people in those countries who aspire to democracy who have invested in our values and who are trying to have a different future. i particularly, i don't know, resent is not a particularly attractive word, but i've got to tell you to hear him say the foreign relations committee has done nothing on dr. afridi just does a disservice to the efforts we've been making in what is called quiet thoughtful diplomacy. not all diplomacy is conducted by passing a fly-by-night amendment on the floor of the united states senate pretending that's going to improve relations or change the world. when you sit down with people and you talk through problems, you can work out a resolution.

now, we had a long conversation just a day ago with the foreign minister of pakistan about dr. afridi. and that's not the first conversation. for months some of us have been talking with pakistan about how we resolve this issue. which does incidentally, have something to do with the law of another country and with the politics of another country and the political demands and needs of another country. and it is not always the best way to resolve those things simply by racing to the floor of the united states senate and saying "here do what we tell you." that's not always how it works i'm afraid. and so i think the senator from kentucky has a lot to learn about how you get things done within the international community. and i would yield two minutes to the senator from arizona -- three minutes. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i hope all of my colleagues will also take note that apac disagrees with the view of the senator from

kentucky about the effect that this legislation may have on aid to israel. you know, every member of congress and all americans should know what happened today in benghazi, libya. the reports are that as many as 30,000 libyans took to the streets in benghazi, the city where ambassador chris stevens and three of his colleagues were tragically murdered ten days ago ago. these demonstrators marched peacefully to the gates of the compound of ansar al sharia. the militia that was responsible for the attack that killed ambassador stevens and his colleagues. the demonstrators conducted themselves peacefully. they carried signs according to media reports that read, "the ambassador was libya's friend. no, no to militias." and when these brave libyans arrived at the gates of the compound, they told the militia that they and their violent extremist agenda are not welcome in the new libya.

do we want to send the message tonight as the people of libya told the militants no, that we will then tell the people of libya, we don't want to have anything to do with you we won't assist you we won't give you what you need to establish a democratic and free society? because of what happened in benghazi today somewhere chris stevens is smiling. he's smiling because this is the real libya the libya that he knew and loved so well, the libya he wanted america to support and remain engaged with, the libya of which he ultimately gave his light. these brave people in libya are friends of america. they want our help and they need our help. and we must continue to provide it with them, which is exactly what chris stevens would have wanted. if the the senate were to cut off all u.s. assistance to libya

now, as this amendment before us would do, it would abandon our friends to our terrorist enemies, destroy america's moral standing in the world and do egregious harm to our national interests. mr. kerry: kerry: i reserve the balance of our time. how much time do we have remaining? the presiding officer: four minutes. mr. kerry: i redisplerve the reserve the balance. thank you. the presiding officer: who yields time? mr. kerry: how much time is remaining altogether? the presiding officer: 2 minutes, 20 seconds on senator paul time. four minutes left for the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: does the senator plan to use his time? [inaudible] the presiding officer: if no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides. mr. kerry: well, mr. president i'll yield myself such time as i use. i'm happy to have senator speak last, if that's what he wants. we have heard today from 110

retired generals and admirals that suspension of u.s. aid is not in america's interests and that assistance is a critical component of america's national security strategy. we've heard from jewish americans about the impacts that this bill would have on our relationship with israel at what they have called -- quote -- "a time of turmoil and uncertainty and the u.s. government needs to be able to use all the available tools to influence events in the region." this aaffects israel's securities -- this affects israel's security. if the united states were to suddenly pull its assistance and change its relationship suddenly with yemen change its relationship with egypt particular. i have heard from the state department who have said that this legislation will -- quote -- "weaken democracies and play into the hands of extremists." now, with respect to libya senator mccain has just spoken eloquently about chris stevens. he knew chris stevens. we knew him on our committee.

he worked for senator lugar. and we knew him as a pearson fellow. no more dedicated person. we just confirmed him and scene him over this may. and i guarantee you the last thing he would want is his death being used as an excuse for the united states to cut off libya and to disengage. the 30,000 people who marched today, marched for america. they marched for themselves. they marched for democracy. they marched for what chris stevens was investing in. and i don't think we want to punish those people and that government because of what happened. with respect to egypt the united states derives extraordinarily important security benefits from the relationship. shutting down american military assistance to egypt would jeopardize our nonproliferation initiatives. it would undermine efforts to stop the smuggling of weapons

and interdicting of arms into gaza which affects the security of israel. it would undermine the 1979 peace treaty between israel and egypt. and those of us who have traveled to israel in recent months have heard concern from israeli officials about the prospects of the suspension of american military assistance to egypt. they've already talked about it. they're nervous about it and they think it would have a profound negative impact on their security in israel. these are the connections that the paul legislation just doesn't face up to. his legislation would essentially shut down our ability to work with the new civilian government and while we are working to build the same kind of alliance with them that we've had previously it -- it would really interrupt that and say to them, the united states of america's not interested in having that kind of an alliance. with respect to pakistan the reality is the united states has vital national security interests in pakistan all of

which are at stake. a population of 190 million people a troubled economy pockets of extremism robust nuclear arsenal. we can't turn our backs on any of that. and i think we need to remember that our aid plays a critical role in supporting our interests and our values. the paul amendment would make us less secure and it is in no one's interest. whatever time we have left, i reserve. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: nothing in this bill refers to israel. nothing would apply to israel. to imagine that any money could be removed from israel, you would have to imagine that secretary of state hillary clinton accuses israel of not protecting the embassy. it's a canard and it's a typical one that's been used many times. nothing in the bill says that we would have no aid to these countries. it just simply says to these countries, if you protect our

embassy libya if you continue to cooperate and send back terrorists and catch the assassins, they'll continue to get our aid. it conditions aid on behavior. right now aid is not being conditioned on behavior. we have pakistan who is actually tortured a friend of america. dr. shakil afridi has been tortured for a year by the pakistani government. the foreign relations committee has done nothing to address that and so we have dr. shakil afridi now in prison for a year. for years for the rest of his life essentially. and i don't see any action coming or forthcoming from the foreign affairs committee. so what i would say to my colleagues is that this is a bill that places restrictions on foreign aid it does not end foreign aid it doesn't breach the israel-egypt

treaty the camp david accord. it's a canard. it's brought up routinely to try to prevent any changes or reform in foreign aid. we always hear it's going to end aid to israel. it's a canard. so what i would say to my colleagues is that this bill does not end foreign aid. it places restrictions on the foreign aid. ask the american people do you think that these restrictions are appropriate? do you think that a host country should protect our embassies? do you think a host country like libya should be asked to continue to cooperate? do you think a host country like pakistan should turn over a friend of america and not imprison and torture a friend of america? i think these are very reasonable restrictions. i think these are restrictions that we should have. i think these are restrictions that anyone in america would say

are very reasonable, and i urge comes. the presiding officer: all time is expired. mr. kerry: mr. president could we have order in the senate? the presiding officer: there is order in the senate. the senator's time has expired. mr. kerry: mr. president with such time as i have left, let me just make it clear the paul legislation requires all identifiable persons associated with organizing, planning, participating in the attack, precipice, breach have been identified by the bureau of diplomatic security or other united states law enforcement entity and are in united states custody. we're talking about other countries. that is an absolutely impossible to fulfill requirement and that is why it would result in the cutoff of aid automatically and that's why it's dangerous. the presiding officer: all time is expired. under the previous order the clerk will report s. 3576. the clerk: calendar number 570 s. 3576, a bill to provide

limitations on united states assistance, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the clerk will read the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 530 s. 3576, a bill to provide limitations on united states assistance and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of the measure. mr. paul: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator wish still to vote or to change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 10. the nays are 81. the 60-vote threshold not having been achieved, the bill is not passed. under the previous order the clerk will report senate joint resolution -- s.j. res. 41. the clerk: calendar number 418, s.j. res. 41 expressing the sense of the congress regarding the nuclear program of the government of the islamic republic of iran. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there are two minutes equally divided. the senator from south carolina. may we have order please for the senator from south carolina.

mr. graham: it doesn't matter. mr. president this, resolution has 83 cosponsors. even i can't lose this vote. this resolution says that it will not be the policy of the united states to allow the iranian regime to get a nuclear weapon and try to contain them. president obama has rejected containment. governor romney. 83 senators have said that's a bad idea. very quickly why will containment not work? if the iranians get a nuclear weapon every sunni arab state will want one. israel will never know a moment's peace. my biggest fear, they'll share the technology with terrorists. the reason thousands have died in the war on terror and not millions is because the terrorists can't get the weapons to kill millions. senator casey has been terrific. my democratic colleagues, thank you for working in a bipartisan fashion. i would yield now to senator

casey. mr. casey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: i want to first of all thank all the members who are -- all the members who are cosponsors led by senator graham senator lieberman and our team doing this. this is bipartisan on a very important issue. i think it does three things t. adds a sense of urgency because of the threat posed by an iranian nuclear program -- the presiding officer: all time in favor has expired. who yields time in opposition? the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: a vote for this resolution is a vote for the concept of preemptive war. i know of no other way to interpret this resolution. the resolution states that containment will never be our policy towards iran. while i think it's unwise to say that we will contain iran, i think it's equally unwise to say

we will never contain iran. we woke up one day and pakistan was a nuclear power. we woke up today and north korea was a nuclear power. india, russia, china. but if we would have announced preemptively that we weren't going to contain anyone, we would be at odds with these countries. and what would the solution be? preemptive war. announcing to the world -- the presiding officer: may we have order for the senator. mr. paul: announcing to the world as this resolution does, the containment will never be our policy is unwise. a country that vows to never contain an enemy is a country that vows always to preemptively strike. i urge a "no" vote on this resolution. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the resolution.

the clerk will read the measure for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 418 s.j. res. 41 is expressing the sense of congress regarding the nuclear program of the government of the islamic iran. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be, and there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators that would like to vote or to change their vote? if not the ayes are 90, the nays are 1 and the joint resolution is passed. under the previous order the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close debate on h.j. res. 117 making continuing appropriations

for fiscal year 2013 signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes equally divided. a senator: could we have order in the senate, please. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. inouye: this c.r. funds the government for six months at a level agreed to in the budget control act. it allows adequate funding for disaster relief and this is an inefficient way to fund our federal government, but it is better than shutting it down next week. i urge a yes vote. the presiding officer: who seeks time? if not by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the

sense of the senate that debate on h.j. res. 117, a joint resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013 and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator wishing to vote or to change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 62, the nays are 30. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. the presiding officer: under the previous order the pending amendments are withdrawn. the clerk will read the joint

resolution for a third time. the clerk: calendar number 511 h.j. res. 117 making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2013 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage of the joint resolution. [inaudible] the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anyone wishing to cast their votes? the ayes are 62. the nays are 30, h.j. resolution 117 is passed. under the previous order the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? mr. president? mr. president? the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 504 s. 3525, a bill to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting fishing shooting and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: there are two minutes equally divided. the republican leader is recognized. the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i'm going to proceed for very briefly on my leader time. i'm going to ask consent that the next vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to s. 3525 be

vitiated and the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 4089 which is at the desk and is the house-passed sportsman heritage act the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider laid on the table. for the record again, this will allow a bill to get to the president's desk immediately. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: mr. president reserving the right -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: the house bill is this big has three provisions. the bill we're going to vote on has 20 supported by over 50 groups. n.r.a. ducks unlimited and more than 50 others. a wonderful piece of legislation that is robust. it's conclusive and it's not partisan. it's a very good piece of legislation. it should be widely accepted. it's a fine piece of legislation supported by conservation groups sportsmen's groups all

over america. i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president very briefly, we could have tonight passed the house-passed sportsmen's bill. it would have gone straight to the president for signature. that having been thwarted by our friends on the other side, i certainly think it's appropriate to vote to proceed to the measure before us, and i intend to vote on it. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: there are two minutes equally divided. mr. tester: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana is recognized. the senate will be in order to listen to the senator from montana. mr. tester: this sportsman act is a compilation of 19 bills. hunting season has already started. this bill benefits 90 million americans who hunt, fish and watch wildlife, supported by 56 groups from the nature conservancy to the n.r.a. it reduces our deficit by some

$7 million due to the net gain over ten years. it's an economic driver for our outdoor industry. some $646 billion in direct spending to our economy. i urge a yes vote on this motion to proceed. since it's 1:20, i would like to have a voice vote on that. the presiding officer: who yields time? who yields time? mr. reid: yield back all time, mr. president. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 3525 a bill to protect enhanced opportunity for recreational hunting fishing and shooting and for other purposes shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: if no senator wishes to vote or change their vote, then on this vote, the yeas are 84, the nays are 7. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

the majority leader. mr. reid: i've been asked on a number of occasions by senator levin senator mccain what we're going to do on the again authorization bill. -- on the defense authorization bill. i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by me, after consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to calendar number 419 s. 3254, the defense authorization bill and that the only -- and that only relevant amendments be in order to the bill. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president reserving right to object. mr. kyl: mr. president, i am very very disappointed in this request. senator mccain has been asking that the leader take up the defense authorization bill for weeks. this evening he tried very hard to get agreement from the senator from michigan, the chairman of the committee and others to try to work out a way that we could take this bill up right after we come back or at some point after we come back after the election. after he leaves the chamber after virtually everybody is

gone, at 1:40 in the morning the majority leader asks unanimous consent to take up the bill limited to relevant amendments. now, that would be fine with he -- and i'm sure it's fine with senator mccain -- but everybody knows that you can't get unanimous consent of your colleagues when they're all gone at 1:40 a.m. in the morning without any advance notice that the request was going to be made. as a result though i would be happy personally to agree to the request, we don't know what our members would agree to whether they would agree to limiting this to relevant amendments or not -- that's the only thing that seems to me to be out of order here -- but obviously we can't agree to it because we can't hot-line this at this time of evening and get consent from our members. what mostly bothers me is the implication, therefore that the leader's all for taking it up and it's republicans that are objecting. and i hope that anyone who is aware of what's been going on here appreciates the fact that no one wants to go to the

defense authorization bill more than my colleague from arizona john mccain, and our leader, mitch mcconnell. so with great regret and only because at this time of morning there's no way to survey our members to see whether they would agree to the request, we have no option but to object. i would certainly hope, mr. president, that the leader would contact senator mccain -- he's left the chamber now but perhaps tomorrow or the next day -- and ask him if we can begin to work this out talk to our members so that when we come back, we can take up the defense authorization bill. we should. the republican members of this body want to do so. and i would hope that we could work that out so it could be dealt with in the very early days after the election. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: yes mr. president, i said i had no alternative. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the majority leader. mr. reid: senator levin has consulted with john mccain in regard to this matter.

senator mccain knows this was going to happen, that's what chairman told me, and he's never not told me the truth. so the bill is being held up. so i'm not surprised. it's been going on for six months. mr. kyl: will the majority leader yield for a question? mr. reid: of course. mr. kyl: my question is, are you saying that senator mccain was aware you were going to make this request tonight in the form that it was made? mr. reid: senator levin gave this toe many, said he already talked to senator mccain about it. mr. kyl: kyl: i do not believe that senator mccain was made aware that the leader of going to pose this request tonight. mr. reid: i first lenders about this several hours ago and i -- i first learned about this several hours ago from senator levin so i take him at his word. mr. kyl: thank you mr. president. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president i ask consent call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble to s. j. res. 481 be agreed to. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. mr. reid: note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations -- calendar number 456 714 880 through 908 and then 910 all nominations placed on the secretary's desk in the air force, army, armed services, navy and health service, that the nomination be confirmed en bloc the nomination be considered made and laid on the table, there being no interconvenienting action or debate any related statements be printed in the record, and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: mr. president? are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration of presidential nomination 1958 and the foreign relation committee be discharged from further consideration of presidential nomination 1879, 1880 and 1923. that's -- that's it. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. reid: mr. president, that the -- we proceed to these en bloc nomination be confirmed motion to reconsider be considered made, laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read and the senate be notified immediately of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate consider calendars numbers 674 675 the senate proceed to vote on the nominations in the order listed, there being no intervening action or debate, no motions to reconsider being made, laid on the table there being no intervening action or debate and that no further motions be in order to the nomination, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection, the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 674

gonzalop.currell of california to be united states circuit judge for the southern district of california. calendar number 675 robert j. shelby of utah to be united states district judge for the district of utah. the presiding officer: is there any fiewrt debate? hearing none, all those in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nominations are confirmed. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 44, s. 1956. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: calendar numbered 484, s. 1956, a bill to prohibit operators of civil aircraft of the united states from participating in the european union's emissions trading scheme and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the committee reported amendment be considered the cardin and merkley amendments at the desk be agreed to, the committee-reported amendment as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table any statements relating to this bill appear at the appropriate place in the record. i would also, mr. president extend my appreciation to all senators who have been involved in this contentious issue for a while at least and especially senator thune who has helped us

work through this and a number of other things. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: